TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

China has been expanding its presence on the South China Sea, which causes tensions in the region. However, when different aspects of the situation are analysed, an open armed conflict seems hardly possible. Looking at China’s activity in this body of water, it appears the Chinese state strives to safeguard its interests, primarily the economic ones, nonetheless it should be emphasized that it pursues its superpower ambitions at the same time.

The subject of this article is the analysis of the conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia in 2008. The conflict has opened a new stage in Russia’s strategic drive to make decisions and implement them in areas recognized as important for the security of the country, even if they are outside its borders. The Georgian case clearly indicated that Russia wants to maintain its dominant position in the entire post-Soviet area. The region of the Caucasus remains an extremely important area for Russia, where it wants to maintain strategic control. The author proves in his article that the main determinants influencing the policy of the Russian Federation in the Caucasus region are: maintaining the greatest possible impact on the internal situation of the countries of the region, the maximum hindering possible integration with the Euro-Atlantic structures, the largest economic dependence on Russia, taking control over key sectors of the economy, maintaining military presence, isolation of the North Caucasus from Georgia, maintaining a monopoly on energy supplies, interest in Azeri mineral resources, striving to take over control of natural gas transport.
The Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 was one of the elements of Russia’s demonstration of the consequences of maintaining its dominant position in the post-Soviet area. The sphere of influence extends not only to Eastern Europe but also to the socalled Putin’s doctrine extends, in fact, to the entire area of the former USSR.

Asymmetry of warfare, or more often asymmetric warfare, is an issue often referred to in descriptions of contemporary political and military relations affecting the state. It is even presented as an entity threatened by these hostilities. Meanwhile, these acts are a form of an armed conflict in which opposing sides have different military potentials. One of the potentials is the power of the state. We must wonder then how the state uses it. Is it not an entity who uses it in a way disproportionate to the situation of conflict? The paper argues that a contemporary state is not without sin and it is not just that it is not able to protect its interests from asymmetric threats. Warfare still is, which many forget, the basis for hostilities (war). In the author’s understanding (erroneous perhaps?) asymmetry does not only occur at the level of war, but it also happens in its key dimension – warfare. It has emerged not only through the change in the status of the fighting party, but also through the time of warfare and using the warfare terrain.

Contemporary time, interpreted by the prism of security, is no longer dominated by easy to describe inter-state conflicts or regional threats. Experts every now and then define new types of threats such as cybercrime, cyberterrorism or cyberwar. The intense and multi-level uncertainty affects the understanding of the present and the predicted future, and thus the search for security by all of us. The answer depends in part on whether we are able to understand contemporary security environment. These issues are, to my mind, independent of the place in which we are. Using tools for diagnosing and monitoring security remains an open question. At the moment we are searching for a solution to this problem by means of modern technologies. The paper stresses the importance and application of e.g. Internet technology and global telecommunication. Interpersonal relations are being replaced with technological solutions. Nowadays, a phone or a computer connected to the web is sufficient to make contact with another person or check what information official sources are bringing us today. Actions for security as a result of incorrect reception of a message may be associated with erroneous perception of the content and propaganda. As a result, the recipient is consciously manipulated. New technologies take the form of nonconventional, organized activities for security. Any number of people can cooperate through the web for security management without actual superior authority. Members of such groups, established ad hoc, may use their knowledge to express objections or dissatisfaction. The paper also presents another aspect of using technology. According to the author, there are situations in which technologies acting for reinforcing security often cause objection, motivated by restricting civil freedoms and by the threat of an attack on a free and open society.

From the European Union perspective regional cooperation in the Western Balkans is one of the fundamental conditions determining the pace of accession to European structures. This question is emphasized in EU documents concerning the enlargement, and it is also each time a subject of the EU’s discussion with representatives of Western Balkan countries. The aim of this paper is to articulate and characterize the premises of EU activity towards Western Balkans and to analyze forms of regional cooperation with the participation of Western Balkan countries as well as an exegesis of factors determining this cooperation.

The European Union needs quick and effective support provided in the event of cross-border crises. Following a few dramatic crisis situations such as terrorist attacks, not long after the Member States had to face forest fires, floods or earthquakes. This is when the EU Member States saw the need for joint action in crisis situations. Crisis management ceased to be considered as competences of Member States. It was realized that a joint and coordinated response to crisis situations brings better effects than if a Member State was to tackle them itself.

Kosovo, the smallest country in Europe, over 10 years after declaring its independence, still remains outside of the European Union. As one of the countries of former Yugoslavia, it benefitted from the process of European integration, yet compared to neighbouring Western Balkan countries it is at an early stage of stabilisation and association process. The paper points to the main problems that Kosovo is facing, both at the internal and external level, in the face of the accession process and future membership in the European Union.

Ensuring the energy security is currently one of the EU’s top priorities. The EU energy policy, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, is regulated by Article 194 TFEU, which guarantees a solid legal basis for European Union actions in this area on the basis of the Community method. The European Parliament, within the scope of its Community competences, as a participant in the decision-making process, contributes to shaping the face of the EU energy policy. Furthermore, by adopting nonlegislative resolutions, the EP expresses its position on the most crucial issues included in this policy and has an indirect influence on its shape. The aim of this article is the analysis of the content of these resolutions and presentation of the EP’s opinion on the challenges facing the EU in the field of energy. It should be highlighted that the European Parliament is the EU body with a strong emphasis on a supranational approach to energy security. The European Parliament prefers the view that all Member States, in a spirit of solidarity, must take actions to guarantee the EU’s common energy security. In favour of a common, integrated European energy market, the EP puts great emphasis on the necessity to implement ambitious climate policy objectives within its framework, the key element of which is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

This article analyses the position of the European Parliament on the priorities for the development of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy. The issues covered by this policy after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty remained the domain of intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms. Despite the changes made to the Lisbon Treaty to unify the Union’s external relations by removing its pillars and expanding CSDP tasks, the role of the EP in its creation has not increased in line with its expectations. In accordance with the provisions of the TEU, decisions on the operation of the CSDP shall be adopted by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or from a Member State. As a result of such Treaty arrangements, the EP is unable to play such a role in the area of CSDP that would correspond to the importance of this body in the EU’s institutional system. Therefore, the main instrument for the implementation of the EP policy in the area of CSDP remain resolutions in which this body calls for the inclusion of transnational cooperation mechanisms in it. By expressing its position in resolutions, the EP advocates for the development of a strong, unified CSDP based on defined European security interests, as well as the development of a pan-European approach to the issues covered by this policy.

The aim of this paper is to present some praxiological reflections and doubts concerning the nature and reliability of political forecasting in present times.

REVIEW

REVIEW